Many pro-life advocates oppose not just abortion but also birth control practices such as RU486, emergency contraception pills , I.U.D., women's birth control pill and the embryonic stem cell research based on the belief that it causes embryonic death.

A philosopher from the London School of Economics claims the concern for embryonic death can even be applied to the rhythm method.

A Philosopher's Take on the Rhythm Method Is Rattling Opponents of Abortion

Luc Bovens, a philosopher at the London School of Economics, argues in the Journal of Medical Ethics that couples who try to prevent pregnancy by avoiding sex during the woman's most fertile time of month may be more likely to produce embryos that do not develop or implant in the womb.
If this is correct, he writes, then "millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death."
Those who worry about early embryonic death should be as concerned about the rhythm method as they are about other forms of contraception, like Plan B, and about embryonic stem cell research, he asserts.

Do you think this argument presents an ethical predicament for pro-life advocates who base their arguments on an opposition to embryonic death?

First of all, I think the opening line says it all... "a philosopher at the London School of Economics". I don't really know what embryos that wouldn't have implanted otherwise have to do with the price of tea in China, nor do I know what a Philosopher is doing at the London School of Economics, or in the Journal of Medical Ethics for that matter.

However, I believe that this quote from the article says what we really need to know:


If most of the medical community doesn't believe this to have scientific bearing, this man doesn't have significant medical credentials or research to back this up... then it's basically a bunch of bologna.

It seems to me that pro-choice advocates will stretch as far as their arms will reach to grab onto something that makes them feel better about aborting a life. Having been an "embryo" at one point, I feel as if there's no distinction between an embryo, a fetus, or a baby when it comes to intentionally stopping the life cycle. Nature is a different story, and if this theory held any water, I'm confident that a scientist or researcher from somewhere would've raised the notion. Until then... let's call a duck a duck... and say that this one is just a stretch.

Do you think this argument presents an ethical predicament for pro-life advocates who base their arguments on an opposition to embryonic death?

Yep, it's a stretch. However, the idea isn't that easily dismissed. A few questions come to mind:

Are eggs released between fertile periods?

If so and a sperm fertilizes an egg, is that the start of human life?

If so, how does one tell if the fertilized egg fails to implant?

If one cannot tell that a human life has just been lost, does it matter?

If it matters, then no birth control is ethical, not even the rhythm method. Ergo, no sex is ethical without the intent of producing a viable fetus.

Well. I guess to fit into this type of ethical stance, then sex must be highly limited unless someone gets fixed. So, are test tube babies the only ethical way to pull off living as a healthy adult? Overly concerned moralists clamor to know.

Economics, at its heart, is philosophical. Surely any serious economic theory is underpinned by rationality, right? Rationality is a construct of Philosophy. Just because most economists don't acknowledge it, doesn't mean they don't use philosophy to justify their claims. Don't forget your roots. There's no such thing as Philosophy-free economics. Only economics which chooses not to examine their philosophical baggage.....(As a side note, this is an Ad Hominem fallacy)

I'm not necessarily saying that this philosopher is correct. Only that it is naive and reductionistic to separate economics from its philosophical background.....

So, are you saying that miscarraiges and fertilized eggs that don't implant are the same as killing a fetus knowingly and deliberately?

Sex doesn't have to be limited, and furthermore the only church that really argues against birth control is the Catholic Church, and it's even more "behind closed doors" these days. They talk about natural family planning during the wedding retreat (commonly known as Pre-Cannon), but generally don't have posters up or preach it during Sunday Mass. So if a woman is on the pill that prevents fertilization, no harm/no foul.

I think there is a sincere difference between something the body does unbeknownst to us and knowing that there is a developing soul in our body, and taking it upon ourselves to be judge and jury. I know that fetuses world wide would agree.

It's always interesting to see debate on "when life begins". Especially when people who abhor science try to use it to prove that abortions are murder.

I'm sure there are a lot of things that abort a fetus, and some that the mother is indirectly responsible for. But like aevans said, it's the " killing a fetus knowingly and deliberately" that anti-choice people attach themselves to.

It's like saying "I don't mind a accidental homicide, but murder should be punished". Which is why you can cart out all the evidence you want that fetuses are dying every day, but not deliberately.

So you're not going to change their minds.

But it is ironic that beyond the point of whether it's murder or not, that with that many embryos or whatever dying everyday that anti-choice people wouldn't concede that maybe god really doesn't see an embryo or egg as a human life form just yet.

And that happens to be my opinion, I see a huge different between an embryo and a baby....like 5 to 10 pounds worth of difference.

Uh, just a fact check here. The London School of Economics, or as it's proper full title goes, the London School of Economics and Politican Science is known by short as the LSE, and it is one of the very best Universities in the UK, ranked third over all but with some of its departments ranked first over Oxford and Cambridge. (Also, notably, where I did my MA)

The 'Economics' is just a name. The school was founded to teach economics generations ago, but has expanded significantly to pretty much every discpline. Economics is one of its top ranked departments, but others are International History, Philosophy, Business and International Relations.

A 'Philosopher at the LSE' actually has even more in terms of name power than a 'Philosopher at Oxford', though his academic pedigree aside, I do have to ask what a philosopher is doing speaking about biology...


Back to the topic at hand:



Ignoring the word soul for a moment (as people don't 'know' there is one developing, a portion of the population hypothesises there might be one developing), does not the fact that the body does this naturally all the time somewhat take the power out of the claim that if people do exactly the same thing through other means, it can't be murder?

Without turning this into an abortion debate (Please!) thye fact that the body rourtinely evacuates fertilised zygotes does put a big logical questionmark behind religious arguments towards god considering this same act to be murder. But then again, as has already been said, it is a pretty small segment of the population that actibely believes contraception is killing..

Actually, our courts basically use this very distinction. As long as you're not negligent, didn't have intent, and weren't part of an association that caused the act... there is no punishment.

For instance, if you have an electric fence with signs up (*true case in Louisiana*), and someone stumbles by and urinates on it... causing death, you're not going to be prosecuted. In fact, you really should be able to go to sleep at night. There wasn't anything you did intentionally or through negligence that caused that death.

However, if you're intentionally throwing wet people on to the fence then there's an issue... don't you think? How come that's "sick", but killing fetuses isn't?

The thing about this debate that is funny is that there is no exact science on how many fertilized eggs don't implant, or what someone might do to cause such a situation.



I don't think every pro-lifer is a Christian, nor do I believe that this has a whole lot to do w/ religion.

I personally believe that most abortions aren't because of medical issues, but moreover because a woman just doesn't want a baby. Funny thing is that there is no time in which a fetus turns into a baby... I suppose it's the point at which it pops out? WHAMMO- it wasn't sick at all to abort the fetus on Tuesday, but if it popped out on Wednesday, it's murder? Ok. fine. Whatever makes you sleep at night.

The point I'd like to make in relation to this debate is that this person is providing no scientific basis for the argument, and it's actually contrary to the statements of the medical doctors in the very same article... and pro-life folks abhor science??? Maybe because Darwinism is a theory and because the Big Bang theory has BIG holes...?? Is that what would make you include such an off-topic and inflammatory statement?



Which is it? 5 or 10??
I think that this debate could use a little "science", in that premature babies that are smaller than 5lbs have lived, and far before the 9mo date has arrived...

Sure would be nice to have read an article from a Doctor or related field scientist that has a more objective view than a Philosopher. I manage an international sales force, so I suppose that I am an expert on Dog Walking?? hahahahaha...

Seems to me using any device or method which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg could qualify as negligent homicide on those grounds, if you believe that all lives should be afforded legal protection from conception. The person intentionally takes measures that have a high likelihood of expelling any potential zygote that happens along. Clear negligence.

I'm saying I understand your view and I realize nothing will change it, even evidence that these events occur all the time naturally. And I can't think of anything that would change your mind and it would take a miracle of god to change my mind.




I don't think a fetus is a person. Much more, I think that the importance of life is really relative.

I compare anti-choice people to being a vegitarian. I was a vegitarian for 4 years and the reasons mainly were for the preservation of life. But like anti-choice people it always gets really sticky because when you take a stand like that you really have so many questions to answer, like "what if you step on an ant" or "are your clothes made of leather".

And the world is so complicated that taking a stand like that backs you into a corner that is really ridiculous. That's why you have so many varities of vegetarians, i.e. "do you eat eggs or fish?" "I just do it for health reasons" blah blah

You see, most people who pretend to care about the "sanctity of life" remind me of me during my vegetarian days. They just want to feel good about themselves. But people are dying all around us and these anti-choice people don't care about them which they should if they TRULY stuck to what they say they believe in. Heck, many anti-choice people believe in the death penalty....so much for the sanctity of life.

Life is important because of what that life means to each person. Your wife, your son, etc. are very important to you for many reasons. And greiving the loss of those people is usually a SELFISH act.

And an Indonesian who happens to get carried out to sea in a Tsunami probably has little relevance to most Americans. Sure, they didn't want it to happen, but it did, oh well.

IMHO, the embryo is not a human being. So killing people or torturing people is so far from eliminating an embryon that, I'm sorry, I can't say it's sick to think that way.

But I understand your position, you value the embryo greatly, probably more greatly than people that have lived a long life and face death. But that's you and that's me. Whatya gonna do?

We just have to agree to disagree.

The rhythm method is not unintentional or unknown. Couples deliberately have sex, which can possibly lead to insemination during a time or period when implantation is least possible. In other words they make the baby when they know the body doesn't want the baby.


One of the main functions this method of birth control works is to rely on the inability of the embryo to implant, fertilization is not always avoided, and often implantation is.

The argument goes that since this means of control is natural it's comparison to other methods that also rely on preventing implantation (IUD) is not acceptable, but is it? If the idea of embryonic death is true then purposefully having sex with forethought, premeditation and preference of the inability for the embryo to implant must also be considered wrong.

The female body aborts naturally, but purposefully taking advantage of this process of "abortion" is removing any reliance on the concept that it is unknown, or even natural. It is a process and it is purposeful.

I didn't mention miscarriages, only the fertalized egg that fails to implant. A deliberate act of sex caused the fertilization, which if one believes so, is the beginning of human life. This is a danger in having deliberate sex, and so, since we are talking ethics here, the risk of killing a human life accompanies sex of any sort (except as explained below).

I'm just pointing out the ethical problem in this particular stance. I don't embrace this stance, but I can see where it can lead: sex only for procreation. This would limit sex to only those fertile days, or as suggested, go the test tube baby route with one or both partners being fixed.

If procreation is eliminated from sex, then there's no chance of murduring a human (as defined).

Regarding the not knowing of the murder, this isn't so if there's knowledge of the possibility. From an ethical standpoint, it is the same as firing a gun repeatedly into a house. There might or might not be someone in there, you just don't know. Someone might or might not die, you just don't know. However, one can avoid all risk of murder by not shooting, and in the ethical situation as presented, one can do the same by sexual abstenance.

Again, I think the ethical stance is foolish, ergo I don't need to rationalize. Get good birth control and screw up a storm. It's good for us.

Be careful about STD though

Vermillion:

You wrote:

"Without turning this into an abortion debate (Please!) thye [sic] fact that the body rourtinely [sic] evacuates fertilised zygotes does put a big logical questionmark behind religious arguments towards god considering this same act to be murder. But then again, as has already been said, it is a pretty small segment of the population that actibely [sic] believes contraception is killing.."

Excuse me, but what occurs "naturally" is simply not the same as what a human does "intentionally." And you otherwise might as well have said: the fact that humans die from all sorts of infectious disease and/or pathogens does put a big logical questionmark behind religous arguments towards god considering the intentional killing of another as murder. To borrow from inmate Hussein, call it the mother of all logical fallacy.



RedCedar:

Life is relative, or at least it was to those who took these lives:

http://research.yale.edu:8084/cgp/cts/ctsr...?record_id=5026
http://research.yale.edu:8084/cgp/cts/ctsr...?record_id=5012
http://research.yale.edu:8084/cgp/cts/ctsr...p?record_id=500
http://www.pbase.com/serenab/image/44454545

Careful, friend, since you might be next, and, hey, who will really miss you, and as you yourself said, aren't those people the selfish ones...

Oh, and by the way, all for liberty are you? Then why are you imprisoning other humans? And you're against theft, yes? But you support automobile repossession without court order, yes? So spare some of us, please, the nonsense about how the execution of the murderer equates with the murder of the innocent. And by the way, we call both "homicide," we simply report that the former is, in the instance, "justified." I'd really like to hear some of the "relativists" justify their acts, but never mind, since the mere fact that one adopted "life is relative" as her/his motto means that he/she has no "just" defense and so had to change the rules [and such a monumental change, since with "relative," then nothing is wrong any more]. We see the same with Bovens [who apparently has the same moral sense as the bovine], since he misstates the position of others, i.e., going back to my response to Vermillion, it isn't embryonic death that is the issue, but instead, INDUCED embryonic death. And we call the loss of an embryo resulting from a natural failure to implant, a miscarriage. But we don't call loss of embroyo that when the barrier prevents the embryo from implanting. So once more, the bovines or bovens of this world must again change the definitions/rules on us [say goodbye to English, hello to Newspeak, and please note that your brain's operating system is now Ingsoc].


Let me leave the two of you with a choice comment from a letter to the BMJ [British Medical Journal editor], from someone who is not pro-life [by self-report]:

"The article fails to acknowledge the distinction between natural loss and loss caused by deliberate human intervention; common sense and every criminal law system recognise the importance of knowledge and intent in human responsibility; in particular, the fact that accidental deaths happen does not justify causing similar deaths. Bovens adopts Harris’ perspective, that the knowledge that some embryos will not naturally survive, amounts to convicting any couple then continuing to conceive naturally of “destruction” of embryos. This is a thesis open to redutio ad absurdum, and rests on Harris’ having dismissed to his satisfaction the double effect principle patently used universally in daily life and medical practice."

And from the same human:

"The first point is in fact valid; the article’s embyonic death proposition is untenable, being based on ignorance and error in physiology – sadly not unique to Bovens. The second point seems to call abortion an action but the use of an IUD a form of omission; ensuring that implantation will not occur (to put it graphically) is not “not providing the right environment for embryonic growth”. The third point conflates OCP use and NFP use from a moral standpoint in continuing the incorrect assumption that NFP is a “mixed” contraceptive approach involving the loss of embryos. The fourth point involves the physiological fallacy that a natural conception could be timed for when the endometrium would be unsupportive of its implantation, and a repetition of the mis-application of “the action/omission doctrine”."

See: http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/32/6/355#528

I still argue that the importance of life is relative. Millions die of AIDs in Africa but if your cat died you may be more upset about that, no?

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying but it seems to be the case.

I never condoned mass murder, in fact I actually stated that people that talk about "the sanctity of life" should be donating money and moving to Africa to help those people instead of worrying about the endangerment of a clump of cells, i.e the embryo.

I'm not sure if your other comments are for me because it has nothing to do with what I said.

I simply said I value the lives of post-fetal persons over embryos.